First, the court held that the truck driver and lessee of the trailer that the driver's truck was pulling at the time of the accident were "insureds" under Koch's excess liability insurance policy. The court explained that this was because the trailer was leased out by Koch, the driver and the lessee were permissive users of the trailer, the policy extended coverage to permissive users, and the policy defined trailer as a covered vehicle.

The court also held that the trucker exclusion in Koch's excess policy, which barred excess coverage for non-employee truckers who were subject to motor carrier insurance requirements and met them by means other than auto liability insurance, and for truckers that operated "hired autos," did not apply to the truck driver and lessee of the trailer. The court explained that the driver and lessee met the motor carrier insurance requirements through a primary auto liability policy, the primary insurer did not dispute that it provided primary coverage for liability stemming from both the truck and the trailer, and Koch failed to otherwise prove that the exclusion applied.

Next, the court stated that under Minnesota 's No-Fault Act, the definition of motor vehicle owner (which included a lessee of a vehicle, including a trailer, that was subject to a lease of six months or longer) did not trump the terms of Koch's excess policy. The policy provided excess coverage to the lessee of the trailer and the driver of the truck pulling the trailer as permissible users of a covered vehicle owned by Koch.

Finally, the court explained that Great West did not breach its fiduciary duty to Koch by accepting coverage under the policy or by settling a personal injury claim arising from the accident, which triggered Koch's obligation under the policy's retention endorsement to reimburse Great West for the first $500,000 it paid. The court determined that the accident and the claim were covered by the policy's terms and Great West had not accepted coverage in contravention of its counsel's recommendation. In addition, Great West took Koch's financial interests into account, as it characterized the total risk at three million dollars if it declined coverage. Further, the policy provided that Great West could settle or defend any claim or suit payable under the policy, and there was no showing that the amount of the settlement was unreasonable or improper.